Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
Marriage is a civil right in the United States. This is a fact, and to deny it is to deny reality.
Loving v. Virginia establishes marriage as a constitutionally protected civil right under the 14th amendment.
|
You can argue this for all you want, but being married is a privilege-- One which isn't given to any persons. This is evidenced by the fact that, in many cases, the Supreme Court has refused to make any direct ruling on the issue and, for the most part, has left it up to the states to decide from themselves whether or not they want to extend those privleges to another group of people.
Quote:
|
Incest, either between a brother and sister, parent and child, or uncle/aunt and neice/nephew increases the chance that offspring produced will have reinforced harmful recessive genes. Long term inbreeding likewise increases the chance of offspring having recessive genetic diseases.
|
Even though this is purely hypothetical, assuming that two people incapable of having children wanted to engage in incest, what would your logic behind denying them that "Right" be?
While it is true that incest causes an increase in recessive traits, it has very little to do why most incest is outlawed in most cultures. Incest has been frowned upon and, in many cultures, outlawed for far longer than humans have known about recessive and dominant traits, only for the simple reason that it has alway been considered to be taboo. Taboo, in our culture, equals a gigantic "No no".
Your reasons as to why incest are wrong, just like many other people, are only a facade to cover up the "I think it's wrong and it shouldn't be legalized!" aspect of it. Similiarly, my reason as to opposing gay marriage is "I think it's wrong and shouldn't be legalized!". Therefore, what's the difference between my stance on gay marriage and your stance on incest?
In fact, aren't you guilty of doing the same thing in which people have accused me of? Your refusal to grant another group of the people the same rights in which you are advocating for would make you a bigot (At least, it would be some people's definition of the word).
Quote:
|
Homosexuality, however, has a zero chance of producing offspring with genetic diseases.
|
That isn't the point at all. The point is that both are outlawed mainly because culture, as a whole, has seen both activities are taboo. You could try to make cases on keeping incest outlawed on the basis of bilogical reasons but, then again, I could make an argument to keep gay marriage outlawed on the basis of social structure.
Quote:
|
Also, your example isn't really parallel. If you're going to go down that slippery slope, we're already on it. Most incestuous relationships are between a male and a female--it's more closely related to heterosexuality than it is homosexuality.
|
This still isn't the point. Read what I typed out before this.
Quote:
|
Strange. You made an absolute statment, which was easy to refute, then react as if you didn't mean it as absolute, then repeat the same absolute statement. You can't have it both ways. The fact that there have been recent changes in Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, and Canada on gay marriage refutes on its face the claim that it "has always been" between a man and a woman. It also refutes the statement "For as long as anyone can remember". I remember the last couple of years when several countries amended their laws to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples. I'm sure the people in those countries remember that as well.
|
Apparently, you missed something. Let me go back to the first page in this discussion to quote myself (Pay attention to the part in
bold).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I was merely responding to raeanna74's post.
As I posted earlier, I really don't care whether or not homosexual's are allowed to marry or not. However, for centuries, marriage has always been deemed betweeen a male and female. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I don't know of any culture which has ever promoted gay marriages (If you know of any, then enlighten me). Whatever the reasons-- Religious, political, social or otherwise-- The status quo regarding marriage is that it's strictly between a man and a woman.
|
That was my original statement. Somewhere along the line you started to play semantics (That is you started to debate the meaning of words instead of the actual post), and took what I said completely out of context, if only to benefit yourself. I'm not exactly sure why everyone else knew I was referencing ancient cultures (Someone even responded as such) while you wanted to throw out recent examples
Quote:
|
It isn't necessary for me to name an ancient culture to disprove these statements. You're making an absolute claim, that it has always been this way, and then setting as your criterion for disputing that claim one small part of it. It doesn't work that way.
|
Read the post in where I quoted myself. That was my original claim. Nowhere did I make an absolute claim. As stated prior, you took what I originally said and started to play semantics, ending up where we are now.
Quote:
|
I understand why you phrase it the way you do. It has more power that way, and if true, carries more weight. It's a dangerous tactic because it makes it easier to disprove, which I have done.
|
*Points above*
Quote:
|
Oh, and your last sentence is misleading. People haven't just "tried to challenge that" it has been successfully challenged and changed.
|
Erm... Once again, you're playing semantics. People have just recently tried to challenge the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. And while, in some countries, they might have won that right, in others they've taken gigantic hits (That last sentence really wasn't relevant, but since you decided to throw in your $.02, I felt that I would do the same).
Quote:
|
A man and a woman" hasn't always been the norm. For much of recorded history, polygyny has been an accepted form of group marriage, both in Western and Eastern cultures.
|
Are you not reading any of my posts? I already acknowledged the fact (Somewhere on the first page) that sometimes marriage occurs between multiple spouses. I have no problems with that (My grandfather in Nigeria has two wives, after all), as I deem marriage to be between a man and a woman. I have no problems with heterosexual marriage. Gay marriages, however, I do have a problem with.
Quote:
|
Finally, in ancient Greece and ancient Rome, to name two, male homosexuality was both commonplace and accepted, especially among the upper classes.
|
Hence my original statement of "I could be wrong".
But I have a question for you: Was homosexuality commonplace, or was gay marriage an accepted practice? Don't mix up the two concepts. In the United States homosexuality is an accepted practice, but we don't legalize gay marriages.
Quote:
|
How can dressing and occupying the social role of the opposite sex even to the point of forming a premanent pair bond with someone of the same physical sex not be related to sexuality?
|
Because it's not. It has nothing to do with sexuality. It's main focus was social structure, in which either men took on the roles of women or women took on the roles of men. Not surprising enough, was the fact that these people played integral parts in the social structure of their native tribes.
Quote:
|
Heterosexuals aren't heterosexual solely when having sex. Heterosexual behavior isn't limited solely to intercourse. The same is true of homosexuality and homosexual sex.
|
I never said it was. Once again, you're taking one of my earlier quotes out of context. The homosexual tendencies which manifest themselves in nature either stem from procreation or social structure (And, even then, it is very limited). In humans, neither of the two is true (Though, I'm sure that you would like to convince yourself that the second is true).
I could sit here and explain to you the institution of marriage and it's social implications, but you would more than likely try to challenge that, as well.
Quote:
|
You're using the same tactic here, making a broad claim--homosexuality is unnatural--and asking for proof that one specific part of that claim is untrue to refute it. It simply doesn't work that way.
|
That wasn't exactly my claim. To quote myself, yet again:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
When one says "Unnatural", I believe them to mean a deviance from the original function or purpose.
|
Quote:
|
By the way, I've seen a male dog hump another male dog. Male mammals when stimulated will try to fuck just about anything available, including other males of the same or even different species.
|
I'm not going to get into this too much, but the top two reasons why dogs will try to hump other males or even people usually boils down to one of two things:
1.) Hormonal imbalances and
2.) The exertion of dominance over another organism.
Quote:
|
Also, what, precisely, is "homosexual intercourse"? I can't think of any sexual activity engaged in by homosexuals that is not also engaged in by heterosexuals. This isn't to say that there aren't I just can't think of any. Is it unnatural only when homosexuals do it, or is also unnatural when heterosexuals do it?
|
Find me where I stated anything about making a distinction between homosexual or heterosexual intercourse.
Quote:
|
I don't dispute this. Since homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction, "social interaction and to relieve stress", along with "it's a lot of fun" is a pretty good way to describe human homosexual sex. For intimate couples, it can be a form of emotional and spiritual bonding, too, but that's hardly a homosexual characteristic.
|
Yes, you could say any of that, but then you'd just be grasping for straws. I'm not going to get into antrhopology too much, but even if you would like to think differently, homosexuality plays much different roles in nature than it does with humans.